Okay... I'll tell you again. If there was no copyright, then everyone could simply copy the works of authors and they may not end up being paid for their work. If authors might not be paid for their work, there would be fewer authors. Copyright and patent law are all about making sure the people who did the work are compensated for their work and not ripped off. This helps ensure they will do the work.
Sure, everyone "could" copy. But would they? Being technically minded as I am, I "could" illegally download just about any ebook I want. However, I buy my ebooks, because I have a real reason to buy - the distribution system is convenient, the price is not exorbitant, and I want to support the author so that he can afford to keep writing (and thus later I get to buy a sequel). I tell you what DOESN'T make me buy books - copyright. Copyright has become a sham law that is only observed by those who are already willing to pay for content, and is blatantly ignored by those who wouldn't pay anyway. Tell me this - why is a book written 61 years ago now a legal bogeyman that stifles the distribution of the creative works of a modern author? Copyright was intended to give a modest protection (originally, 14 years) to an author in a time when there was no means to verify authenticity of creative works. Copyright proponents have turned this into lifetime plus 70 years, so that the children and grandchildren of successful authors can be protected from, what, new authors creating derivative works?
Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.